Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
German Perez sued Texis Restaurants and other defendants in federal court asserting an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility claim and supplemental state-law claims under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act and related provisions. The federal claim provides the basis for original jurisdiction; the state claims rely on supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
California has imposed special rules on construction-related accessibility claims under the Unruh Act, including heightened pleading requirements (Cal. Civ. Code § 55.52(a)(1); Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.50(a)) and a separate “high-frequency litigant” fee for plaintiffs and counsel who have filed at least ten construction-related accessibility actions in the prior 12 months (Cal. Gov’t Code § 70616.5; Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.55). The court’s docket review showed Perez had filed more than ten such actions in the year preceding this complaint — qualifying him as a high-frequency litigant under California law.
The Court’s Holding
Judge John A. Kronstadt issued an Order to Show Cause why the court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Perez’s state-law claims. Citing prior decisions (Whitaker v. RCP Belmont Shore LLC; Garibay v. Rodriguez), the court explained that California’s special rules for construction-related accessibility claims — heightened pleading and the high-frequency litigant fee — reflect a substantial state interest in regulating this category of litigation. Allowing high-frequency plaintiffs to bring state-law claims in federal court alongside their ADA claims would let them bypass California’s carefully calibrated state-law procedures.
Under § 1367(c), district courts may decline supplemental jurisdiction in “exceptional circumstances” or where there are “other compelling reasons.” The Ninth Circuit has held those criteria are satisfied where exercising supplemental jurisdiction would undermine California’s special procedures. Perez was ordered to file a response by January 20, 2026, including a declaration on his statutory damages and his high-frequency-litigant status under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.50(b)(1)-(2). Failure to respond timely could result in dismissal of the state-law claims without prejudice.
Key Takeaways
- California has a substantial state interest in policing the litigation behavior of “high-frequency” ADA/Unruh Act plaintiffs through its heightened pleading and special-fee regime.
- Federal courts in this District routinely decline supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh Act claims when the plaintiff is a high-frequency litigant, to prevent end-runs around California’s state-court procedures.
- A high-frequency litigant is one who has filed 10 or more construction-related accessibility complaints in the preceding 12 months (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.55(b)).
- The mechanism is § 1367(c)(4): “exceptional circumstances” with “compelling reasons” for declining jurisdiction.
- If supplemental jurisdiction is declined, the federal ADA claim still proceeds in federal court, but the Unruh and other state-law claims must be refiled (or originally filed) in state court — where the heightened pleading rules and special fees apply.
Why It Matters
This OSC pattern is now a fixture of high-frequency ADA litigation in the Central District. Plaintiffs who file many accessibility cases routinely face an OSC asking them to justify exercising supplemental jurisdiction, often resulting in dismissal of the state-law claims. The practical effect is to channel the more lucrative Unruh Act statutory-damages component into California state court, where the high-frequency litigant fee and heightened pleading requirements apply.
For ADA-defense counsel, OSCs of this kind are an opportunity to highlight the plaintiff’s litigation history. For plaintiffs’ counsel, the opinion is a reminder that the federal docket is no longer an attractive forum for high-volume Unruh damages claims.